US Signs Deal For Long-Term Occupation Of Iraq


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

US Signs Deal For Long-Term Occupation Of Iraq
By Jerry White
28 November, 2007

President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed an agreement 
Monday paving the way for the long-term occupation of the Middle Eastern country
and its transformation into a semi-colonial protectorate of the US.

The ³Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and 
Friendship² outlines plans for the establishment of permanent US military bases 
in Iraq to suppress internal opposition to the US-installed regime and protect 
US economic and political interests throughout the region. It also provides for 
preferential treatment for US energy conglomerates and investors to exploit 
Iraq¹s newly opened up oil resources.

The new agreement‹signed during a secret videoconference between Bush and 
Maliki‹without the slightest democratic pretenses in each country‹exposes the 
repeated lies, peddled by the White House ever since the April 2003 invasion, 
that the US had no intention to set up permanent military bases or carry out an 
long-term occupation of Iraq.

The declaration calls for the current United Nations mandate‹which has provided 
a legal fig leaf for the US occupation‹to be extended one more year and 
thereafter to be replaced by a bilateral economic and security pact between the 
two countries.

The full details of the pact‹including the size of the US occupying force‹are to
be worked out by July 31, 2008 and are scheduled to take effect in early 2009, 
i.e., after Bush leaves office. Although the agreement will commit US troops to 
remain in the country for years, if not decades, the White House insists that it
will not rise to the level of a formal treaty, requiring congressional approval.

Maliki signed the declaration without any serious parliamentary debate. Sunni 
Arab and Shia politicians immediately denounced it, saying the agreement would 
lead to ³US interference for years to come.² The Association of Muslim Scholars,
a Sunni group, said the Iraqi signatories of the declaration would be looked on 
as ³collaborators with the occupier.²

Under the proposed formula, Iraqi officials told the Associated Press, Iraqi 
forces will take charge of internal security, and US troops will relocate to 
bases outside the cities. They foresee at least 50,000 American troops remaining
in the country indefinitely. The White House says the bilateral agreement will 
not contain timetables for the withdrawal of troops.

White House deputy national security advisor Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute 
said the declaration signaled that the US ³will protect our interests in Iraq, 
alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner,
able to increasingly contribute to regional stability.²

US forces will protect the interests of American energy companies once the 
country¹s vast oil wealth‹the second largest proven oil reserves in the 
world‹are opened up to international and in particular US investment. This is 
only possible by intensifying US military repression of the Iraqi people and 
crushing popular opposition to the US-installed regime and the American 

At the same time permanent US bases are being set up to project American 
military power throughout the Middle East and provide US forces increased 
capabilities to launch attacks against Iran, Syria and other countries.

Debka-Net-Weekly, a web site associated with Israeli military intelligence, said
the US has plans to remove 100,000 troops by the end of 2009, leaving behind 
50,000-70,000 in 20 huge land and air bases. ³These bases,² the site wrote, ³are
under construction; they will be secured by broad swathes of space, fortified 
with weaponry and remote-controlled electronic devices.² US troops will be 
responsible for protecting Iraq¹s borders from ³external threats,² Debka 
reported, adding, ³US air strength and special forces in these bases will have 
rapid deployment capabilities for reaching points outside Iraq at need.²

The US launched the Iraq war to establish unchallenged domination of the Middle 
East and fend off the growing inroads into the energy-rich region by its 
economic rivals, such as China and Russia. The economic advantages of occupying 
Iraq are spelled out in one of the principles outlined in the new US-Iraqi 
declaration, which calls for ³facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign 
investment to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the 
reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.²

Another declares US support for aiding Iraq¹s ³transition to a market economy,² 
which includes opening up the nationalized oil industry to the control of 
ExxonMobil, Chevron and other US energy conglomerates.

Earlier this month the Iraqi government, guided by American legal advisors, 
cancelled a contract originally signed by the Saddam Hussein government in 1997 
with the Russian company Lukoil, for the development of the vast oil field in 
Iraq¹s southern desert. The West Qurna fields‹with estimated reserves of 11 
billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven oil reserves of 
ExxonMobil, America¹s largest oil company‹will now be opened to international, 
and in particular, US bidders.

Vladimir Tikhomirov, the chief economist at the Russian bank UralSib, told the 
New York Times, ³From the Russian government perspective, Iraq is seen as 
occupied and its administration directed by Washington, particularly when it 
comes to oil. The Russians see the cancellation of the contract in Iraq as part 
of the US drive to keep control over the major oil fields there.²

The declaration of principles is loaded with Orwellian language aimed at 
concealing its nakedly imperialist aims. The US‹which launched an illegal war 
and occupation that have resulted in the virtual destruction of an entire 
society and the deaths of more than one million Iraqis‹declares its commitment 
to ³deter foreign aggression.² All those who oppose the occupation are 
³terrorists² and ³outlaws² who must be defeated and ³uprooted² from Iraq.

The real face of the American military presence was shown this week when US 
troops fired on vehicles at roadblocks in Baghdad and north of the Iraqi 
capital, killing at least five people, including three women and a child, in two
separate shootings.

The commitment to a long-term occupation hardly provoked a murmur from the 
Democratic Party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Bush for planning to 
leave office with a ³US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking 
point, with no clear exit strategy.²

While opposing Bush for failing to efficiently wage the war the Democrats defend
the same economic interests as the Republicans and have made it clear they will 
not end the occupation if they take control of the White House in 2009. In fact 
the military scenario envisaged in the deal signed by Bush corresponds to the 
bipartisan plans being worked out between the Bush administration and the 
Democrats for a ³post-surge Iraq.²

Leading Democrats, such as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack 
Obama, have argued for the reduction of US forces and their redeployment from 
the cities to ³over-the-horizon² positions where they could strike opponents of 
the US-backed regime, as well as Iran. Clinton in particular has argued that 
pulling US troops out of the cities would reduce US casualties, thereby making 
the long-term occupation of Iraq more politically palatable in the US, while 
still keeping forces available to defend US economic interests.

Posting archives:

Escaping the Matrix website:
cyberjournal website:

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework:

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)